4.5 Article

Prevalence of adults with type 1 diabetes who meet the goals of care in daily clinical practice: A nationwide multicenter study in Brazil

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 97, 期 1, 页码 63-70

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2012.02.008

关键词

Type 1 diabetes; Glycemic control; Cardiovascular risk factors; Chronic complications

资金

  1. Farmanguinhos/Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz/National Health Ministry
  2. Fundacao do Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico do Brasil
  4. Brazilian Diabetes Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the prevalence of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus who meet the glycemic and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors goals and the frequency of screening for diabetic complications in Brazil according to the American Diabetes Association guidelines. Research design and methods: This was a cross-sectional, multicenter study conducted between December 2008 and December 2010 in 28 public clinics in 20 Brazilian cities. Data were obtained from 1774 adult patients (56.8% females, 57.2% Caucasians) aged 30.3 +/- 9.8 years with diabetes duration of 14.3 +/- 8.8 years. Results: Systolic blood pressure was at goal in 40.3% and diastolic blood pressure was at goal in 26.6% of hypertensive patients. LDL cholesterol and HbA1c were at the goal in 45.2% and 13.2% of the patients, respectively. Overweight was presented in 25.6% and obesity in 6.9%. Among those with more than 5 years of disease, screening for retinopathy was performed in the preceding year in 70.1%. Nephropathy and feet complications were screened in 63.1% and 65.1%, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of patients did not meet metabolic control goals and a substantial proportion was not screened for diabetic complications. These issues may increase the risk of chronic complications and negatively impact public health. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据